When I went to school, all we learned about was evolution. I grew up going to church as a kid but creation wasn't a big topic. As I got older, I found out I wanted to learn more about creation. I started reading magazines, books, etc.

To the evolutionists, how much have you actually studied on creation? What about creation does not make sense to you? What's your biggest hurdle? Is believing a book written 6000 years ago not conceivable? (Keep in mind, Darwin wrote a book as well).

In fact, you can read the origin of species online at http://www.literatur...cies/index.html Darwin sure used a lot of 'could haves' and 'mights' as he discussed his theory. Is that science? I challenge you to take a look at the link, do a 'CTRL F' and search the mights and coulds.

There are no 'mights' or 'could haves' when it comes to creation.

How many books/magazines have you read on creation? What in particular about the creation model is not accurate and why? How much time have you actually spent comparing creation to evolution, side by side? How much of the bible have you read? When something didn't make sense, what did you do? Did you actually try to understand it or just read it with an attitude of, "I can't believe I'm reading this, I'm set in my ways, there is no God.' etc.

If you could provide just ONE thing that screams 'evolution!' what would it be? What's your biggest piece of evidence, if you will?

You can of course now go and say that the evolutionary model has got some methodological differences to the common fiction narrative. But it still is just a postulated. And yes, you'd have to deal with several other logical issues as well. In the end you sit only with a model that thrives because it is the pet theory of many in academia.

To the evolutionists, how much have you actually studied on creation? What about creation does not make sense to you? What's your biggest hurdle? Is believing a book written 6000 years ago not conceivable? (Keep in mind, Darwin wrote a book as well).

I have been studying creationism for 12 years. Biggest hurdle? I haven't really ranked the hurdles before. From the Bible, I would say it is the order of the creation as depicted in Genesis. Day and night before the Sun was created...etc. Biggest from the creation literature I have read; a violent worldwide flood that moved continents and tore up any evidence of human habitation yet sorted the animals and plants such that the same species were allways in the same geologic layers.

In fact, you can read the origin of species... Darwin sure used a lot of 'could haves' and 'mights' as he discussed his theory. ... There are no 'mights' or 'could haves' when it comes to creation.

Certainly, there are no 'mights' or 'could haves' in the Bible regarding creation. However, the explanations for a simple question like "If the universe is only 6000 years old, how can we see stars that are 1 million light years away?" evoke a number of 'mights' and 'could haves'.

How many books/magazines have you read on creation?

I don't know exactly but I will say a great many.

What in particular about the creation model is not accurate and why?

The fact that there does not seem to be a coherent "creation model". The reason provided to explain why this piece of evidence points to an extremely old universe/earth does not mesh well, and sometimes contradicts the reason put forth to explain a different piece of evidence also supports old universe/earth. There seems to be no synthesis in the "creation model", just ad hoc explanations for what we see in the real world.

How much of the bible have you read?

All of it, a number of times.

When something didn't make sense, what did you do?

Talked to my pastor...wrote to pastors online. I was an Assembly of God Christian.

Did you actually try to understand it or just read it with an attitude of, "I can't believe I'm reading this, I'm set in my ways, there is no God.' etc.

This seems like a simple enough question on the surface. However, it implies that because a person believes that the theory of evolution is a more reasonable explanation than the "creation model" of how Earth got this amazing variety of life, that they don't believe in God. I don't see how belief in one excludes belief in the other.Secondly, it implies that the Bible can be understood completely. This implication is belied by the fact that there are a great many denominations of the Christian faith, all of whom believe that the others are not understanding the Bible correctly.I have tried to understand what I was reading in the Bible as shown by my queries to my pastor and others who I deemed as experts on the scriptures of their faith. It is their job after all.

Have you tried to understand it? How do you know you understand it correctly?

If you could provide just ONE thing that screams 'evolution!' what would it be? What's your biggest piece of evidence, if you will?

The closely matching loci of the endogenous retrovirus remnants within the genomes of the human and chimpanzee species.

Quote: Biggest from the creation literature I have read; a violent worldwide flood that moved continents and tore up any evidence of human habitation yet sorted the animals and plants such that the same species were allways in the same geologic layers.

Really? Who told you that? Did you get it from talk/origins?

You mean like this:

Agate Springs Nebraska where tens of thousands of organisms were found all in the same place, crushed and fossiled at the same time...as if they had all migrated to that same location to die together. (Or did they go there to escape rising flood waters...having the capability of doing what smaller, less mobile animals did not have?)

How about this:

Much the same thing in a much wider area from the Green River Formation USA.

I don't know all the reasons you tossed out faith in God's word but you made a mistake and you need to return to Jesus before His 2nd coming which is near.

Quote: Biggest from the creation literature I have read; a violent worldwide flood that moved continents and tore up any evidence of human habitation yet sorted the animals and plants such that the same species were allways in the same geologic layers.

Really? Who told you that? Did you get it from talk/origins?

I was not under the impression that talkorigins was a website that supported Young Earth Creationism. My sources for the statement above are Answers in Genesis, some debate sites and speaking with my friends who are creationists.

You mean like this: {picture of many fossilized bones jumbled together}

Agate Springs Nebraska where tens of thousands of organisms were found all in the same place, crushed and fossiled at the same time...as if they had all migrated to that same location to die together. (Or did they go there to escape rising flood waters...having the capability of doing what smaller, less mobile animals did not have?)

How about this: {picture of fossilized dinosaur bones jumbled together}

Much the same thing in a much wider area from the Green River Formation USA.

Further research into those bone-yards will show that each bone-yard only contains animals that are always found in the same geologic layer as each other. If you could show one set of bones that is from an animal that is not found in that geologic layer then you would have a better case for there being a worldwide flood. If all those animals ran away from the flood waters, where are the humans? Wouldn't they have run and also been stuck on those hilltops when they drowned?

I don't know all the reasons you tossed out faith in God's word but you made a mistake and you need to return to Jesus before His 2nd coming which is near.

Thanks for your concern. However, faith would require belief which I cannot make myself do. For me, belief would require more evidence than some man in a pulpit telling me that what he says is true.

BTW, doesn't this:

(Or did they go there to escape rising flood waters...having the capability of doing what smaller, less mobile animals did not have?)

I was not under the impression that talkorigins was a website that supported Young Earth Creationism. My sources for the statement above are Answers in Genesis, some debate sites and speaking with my friends who are creationists...

But you were also not under the impression that he was referring to the following in your statement?

Quote: Biggest from the creation literature I have read; a violent worldwide flood that moved continents and tore up any evidence of human habitation yet sorted the animals and plants such that the same species were allways in the same geologic layers.Really? Who told you that? Did you get it from talk/origins?

One ought at least try to understand a discussion partner and not read stuff into his texts he obviously did not mean.

Further research into those bone-yards will show that each bone-yard only contains animals that are always found in the same geologic layer as each other. If you could show one set of bones that is from an animal that is not found in that geologic layer then you would have a better case for there being a worldwide flood. If all those animals ran away from the flood waters, where are the humans? Wouldn't they have run and also been stuck on those hilltops when they drowned?

I don't know. Looks like at least ten of them (humans) were too busy getting buried in the Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone near Moab, Utah to gather with the critters at Agate Springs (http://www.bible.ca/...lachite-man.htm)

I was not under the impression that talkorigins was a website that supported Young Earth Creationism. My sources for the statement above are Answers in Genesis, some debate sites and speaking with my friends who are creationists.

Answers in Genesis and talk/origins hold two entirely different positions on fossils. Talk/origins hold to the view you stated above while AIG position is that closely resembling what I have strongly suggested: Larger and more mobile organisms would be much more likely to escape the threating destruction of the cataclysm caused by rising flood waters and chaotic condition.

Further research into those bone-yards will show that each bone-yard only contains animals that are always found in the same geologic layer as each other. If you could show one set of bones that is from an animal that is not found in that geologic layer then you would have a better case for there being a worldwide flood. If all those animals ran away from the flood waters, where are the humans? Wouldn't they have run and also been stuck on those hilltops when they drowned?

An entire tribe of ancient humans in Germany. Scientists said they were all looking in the same direction when they were suddenly and mysteriously destroyed, circa 2,600 B.C. approx.

Thanks for your concern. However, faith would require belief which I cannot make myself do. For me, belief would require more evidence than some man in a pulpit telling me that what he says is true.

I am an ex-evolutionist. I have accepted the Word of God that it is telling the truth about origins and not neo-Darwinism. After over 40 yrs of research on the subject I have compiled massive evidence of what the scriptures tell us about the Noahic Deluge.

I don't know. Looks like at least ten of them (humans) were too busy getting buried in the Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone near Moab, Utah to gather with the critters at Agate Springs (http://www.bible.ca/...lachite-man.htm)

There seems to be some controversy but this seemed to have cleared it up: http://creationwiki...._(Talk.Origins). It appears there were two skeletons found 15 feet down in 1971 (Moab Man) and eight seemingly unrelated skeletons found in the 1990 (Malachite Man) 58 feet deep in solid rock. The two finds were about 100 feet apart.

But you were also not under the impression that he was referring to the following in your statement?

One ought at least try to understand a discussion partner and not read stuff into his texts he obviously did not mean.

I apologize to Calypsis4 if I took it the wrong way. I interpreted his "Really? Who told you that? Did you get it from talk/origins?" to be a sarcastic comment indicating that I have not ventured beyond "evolutionist" publications and replied in a like manner. It was not all that obvious what he meant.

I don't know. Looks like at least ten of them (humans) were too busy getting buried in the Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone near Moab, Utah to gather with the critters at Agate Springs (http://www.bible.ca/...lachite-man.htm)

Were they found with dinosaur bones? The site you sent me to doesn't say one way or another.

Answers in Genesis and talk/origins hold two entirely different positions on fossils. Talk/origins hold to the view you stated above while AIG position is that closely resembling what I have strongly suggested: Larger and more mobile organisms would be much more likely to escape the threating destruction of the cataclysm caused by rising flood waters and chaotic condition.

Answers in Genesis has had Dr John Baumgardner write articles detailing the Catastrophic Plate Tectonic theory for explaining the global flood. The events described are extremely earth shaking. With this type of distruction, it seems that the sorting of plants and animal species into geologic layers would not occur.

An entire tribe of ancient humans in Germany. Scientists said they were all looking in the same direction when they were suddenly and mysteriously destroyed, circa 2,600 B.C. approx.

I'm sorry but the site you sent me to did not have information on the tribe you discussed.

I am an ex-evolutionist. I have accepted the Word of God that it is telling the truth about origins and not neo-Darwinism. After over 40 yrs of research on the subject I have compiled massive evidence of what the scriptures tell us about the Noahic Deluge.

Did you believe in God when you "believed" in evolution? What event or evidence changed your belief?

No. God doesn't lie. Darwinists do.

If the scientists or anyone else who agree with the theory of evolution are wrong, then they are wrong. Being incorrect doesn't make a person a liar.

Answers in Genesis has had Dr John Baumgardner write articles detailing the Catastrophic Plate Tectonic theory for explaining the global flood. The events described are extremely earth shaking. With this type of distruction, it seems that the sorting of plants and animal species into geologic layers would not occur.

Either you are (1) truly ignorant of what creationists have said in this matter or (2) you are deliberately stonewalling your mind to the facts that creationists have brought out in this matter for spiritual reasons that you aren't telling us about.

Nonetheless, the creationist position is clearly detailed and supported by the facts as found in:

I'm sorry but the site you sent me to did not have information on the tribe you discussed.

But you conveniently paid no attention to the details of either example/source I gave you. I will have to go dig for the source on the German tribe that was wiped out...but nonetheless they are not an isolated example. Are you trying to tell me you have NEVER seen human fossil evidence? If so, I don't believe you.

Did you believe in God when you "believed" in evolution? What event or evidence changed your belief?

I was seeking. What changed me? The evidence. Starting with Asimov's unbelievable claim in "The Wellsprings of Life" that there was a singular case of biogenesis (he called it spontaneous generation!) after all,...in the distant past. His evidence? None. The fact is that no one has ever observed life generating from non-living matter so how did evolution get started in the first place? Then there were the living fossils, none of which reveal any evolutionary change. Then there was the fossil record...after finding out that the best conditions for fossilization was during cataclysmic conditions. Polystrate fossils, out-of-place-artifacts, etc. Need I go further? Evolution is nothing but a sorry joke and atheism is a ship of fools.

If the scientists or anyone else who agree with the theory of evolution are wrong, then they are wrong. Being incorrect doesn't make a person a liar.

It does if the facts clearly say otherwise and one holds to such a position in spite of the facts.

There seems to be some controversy but this seemed to have cleared it up: http://creationwiki...._(Talk.Origins). It appears there were two skeletons found 15 feet down in 1971 (Moab Man) and eight seemingly unrelated skeletons found in the 1990 (Malachite Man) 58 feet deep in solid rock. The two finds were about 100 feet apart.

Were they found with dinosaur bones? The site you sent me to doesn't say one way or another.

At that particular locality, as far as I know, no. The Dakota sandstone forms a resistant cap rock that preserves the Morrison formation exposures where many dinosaurs are found at places like Dinosaur National Monument at the northern Utah-Colorado border, and Dinosaur Ridge west of Denver, CO along the Front Range, for example. It also has many dinosaur tracks.

I really wouldn't expect to find dinosaurs and people normally buried together as a result of a global flood. While there are creationists that hold to a little different view, as I understand it, it took 40 days for the rising floodwaters to float the Ark, and 150 days for them to rise high enough to completely cover the Earth. During that time, you would have had many areas being constantly and progressively inundated, with sedimentary deposition occurring during inundation, and then exposed as the water level rose and fell due to tidal and tectonic activity (leaving plenty of opportunity for activities like theropods feeding on carcasses of the already dead, egg-laying, trackways, etc. when those areas get temporarily exposed--see, for example, Michael J Oard's "BEDS Hypothesis"-briefly exposed diluvial sediments-in his book Dinosaur Challenges and Mysteries).

I don't know about you, but if I was fleeing from progressively rising floodwaters, the last place I would seek refuge is in the middle of an agitated, stampeding herd of sauropods.

To the evolutionists, how much have you actually studied on creation? What about creation does not make sense to you? What's your biggest hurdle? Is believing a book written 6000 years ago not conceivable? (Keep in mind, Darwin wrote a book as well). IN my more than half a century of reading and thinking, I've read the writings of Creationists extensively, from the emergence of modern Creationism up to the present time. My library of Creationist literature is nearly as extensive as my library on general evolutionary theory.

In fact, you can read the origin of species online at http://www.literatur...cies/index.html Darwin sure used a lot of 'could haves' and 'mights' as he discussed his theory. Is that science? I challenge you to take a look at the link, do a 'CTRL F' and search the mights and coulds. That is the strength of science, not its weakness - all scientific explanations are provisional. Science grows with the evidence; it is an assymptotical approach to the truth.

There are no 'mights' or 'could haves' when it comes to creation. True, only religion claims Absolute Truth. But that is all smoke and mirrors. The Bible is inerrant because it is Absolutely True. And it is Absolutely True because it is the Bible. No external verification needed, wanted or possible to the Biblical Literalists.

How many books/magazines have you read on creation? Hundreds. What in particular about the creation model is not accurate and why? The Creation model makes absolutely no testable predictions about the physical universe. How much time have you actually spent comparing creation to evolution, side by side? A great deal of time. Reading the Creationist literature and checking each claim of fact takes a lot of time. Just understanding those claims takes time, because they usually get their "facts" so garbled that you can't trace them to their source. How much of the bible have you read? I have read the Bible from cover to cover a number of times, and have read several different concordances and other scholarly studies on the Bible. When something didn't make sense, what did you do? Did you actually try to understand it or just read it with an attitude of, "I can't believe I'm reading this, I'm set in my ways, there is no God.' etc. Actually, that thought doesn't enter my mind when I read the inaccuracies in the Creationist accounts, since I am, in fact, an agnostic, theistic evolutionist. The facts of evolution, and the theory of evolution have nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of God, so I find that an odd thought to even contemplate.

If you could provide just ONE thing that screams 'evolution!' what would it be? What's your biggest piece of evidence, if you will? The evidence is so overwhelming it would be hard to pick just one thing. For me, of course, as a paleontologist, it has to be the fossil record. But the molecular evidence is also amazingly strong.

I also have to take exception to your use of the word Creation to describe what you claim to believe and support. What you believe is Creationism in its modern, Christian Fundamentalist, Biblical Literalist form. Even within that tradition, there are a dozen or more "flavors" of Creationism: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design, Flood Geology, Baraminology - each one of them believing slightly, or vastly, in some cases, different things, but all laying claim to Absolute Truth. And that of course is ignoring all the other "Creation" stories: Hindu, Moslem, Native American, dozens upon dozens.

One could turn the tables on you, and ask you all the same questions, in reverse. How many evolutionary biology books have you read? Have you actually read any of Darwin's books cover-to-cover, instead of doing google searches and Control-F to find certain phrases to bolster the arguments you've read on Creationist websites? How many scholarly articles have you read on the fossil record - not misquotes from Creationist websites, but actual articles by the scientists?

I find the Bible to be great literature - it contains much of interest to ponder in terms of morals, ethics, philosophy and Bronze-age mythology. It is not, however, either a science text or a history book - although there is much historical fact contained in it, and much observation of the natural history of the Holy Lands as understood by those Bronze age pastoralists. However, it is not primary literature for historical research - it is at best a secondary or tertiary source of data to be confirmed by more direct means.

In short, my problem with Creationsim is that it is not science - it cannot provide testable explanations for the observations we make of the physical world around us. The tool we have to do that is the scientific method. Religion is for a different purpose, and the two are not in conflict. Those who believe that science and religion are in conflict undersand little or nothing about science, and even less about theology.

Remember what a famous 19th Century theologist had to say: "There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

1. To the evolutionists, how much have you actually studied on creation? What about creation does not make sense to you? What's your biggest hurdle? Is believing a book written 6000 years ago not conceivable? (Keep in mind, Darwin wrote a book as well). IN my more than half a century of reading and thinking, I've read the writings of Creationists extensively, from the emergence of modern Creationism up to the present time. My library of Creationist literature is nearly as extensive as my library on general evolutionary theory.

2. In fact, you can read the origin of species online at http://www.literatur...cies/index.html Darwin sure used a lot of 'could haves' and 'mights' as he discussed his theory. Is that science? I challenge you to take a look at the link, do a 'CTRL F' and search the mights and coulds. That is the strength of science, not its weakness - all scientific explanations are provisional. Science grows with the evidence; it is an assymptotical approach to the truth.

3. There are no 'mights' or 'could haves' when it comes to creation. True, only religion claims Absolute Truth. But that is all smoke and mirrors. The Bible is inerrant because it is Absolutely True. And it is Absolutely True because it is the Bible. No external verification needed, wanted or possible to the Biblical Literalists.

4. How many books/magazines have you read on creation? Hundreds. What in particular about the creation model is not accurate and why? The Creation model makes absolutely no testable predictions about the physical universe. How much time have you actually spent comparing creation to evolution, side by side? A great deal of time. Reading the Creationist literature and checking each claim of fact takes a lot of time. Just understanding those claims takes time, because they usually get their "facts" so garbled that you can't trace them to their source. How much of the bible have you read? I have read the Bible from cover to cover a number of times, and have read several different concordances and other scholarly studies on the Bible. When something didn't make sense, what did you do? Did you actually try to understand it or just read it with an attitude of, "I can't believe I'm reading this, I'm set in my ways, there is no God.' etc.

5. Actually, that thought doesn't enter my mind when I read the inaccuracies in the Creationist accounts, since I am, in fact, an agnostic, theistic evolutionist. The facts of evolution, and the theory of evolution have nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of God, so I find that an odd thought to even contemplate.

6. If you could provide just ONE thing that screams 'evolution!' what would it be? What's your biggest piece of evidence, if you will? The evidence is so overwhelming it would be hard to pick just one thing. For me, of course, as a paleontologist, it has to be the fossil record. But the molecular evidence is also amazingly strong.

7. I also have to take exception to your use of the word Creation to describe what you claim to believe and support. What you believe is Creationism in its modern, Christian Fundamentalist, Biblical Literalist form. Even within that tradition, there are a dozen or more "flavors" of Creationism: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design, Flood Geology, Baraminology - each one of them believing slightly, or vastly, in some cases, different things, but all laying claim to Absolute Truth. And that of course is ignoring all the other "Creation" stories: Hindu, Moslem, Native American, dozens upon dozens.

8. One could turn the tables on you, and ask you all the same questions, in reverse. How many evolutionary biology books have you read? Have you actually read any of Darwin's books cover-to-cover, instead of doing google searches and Control-F to find certain phrases to bolster the arguments you've read on Creationist websites? How many scholarly articles have you read on the fossil record - not misquotes from Creationist websites, but actual articles by the scientists?

9. I find the Bible to be great literature - it contains much of interest to ponder in terms of morals, ethics, philosophy and Bronze-age mythology. It is not, however, either a science text or a history book - although there is much historical fact contained in it, and much observation of the natural history of the Holy Lands as understood by those Bronze age pastoralists. However, it is not primary literature for historical research - it is at best a secondary or tertiary source of data to be confirmed by more direct means.

10. In short, my problem with Creationsim is that it is not science - it cannot provide testable explanations for the observations we make of the physical world around us. The tool we have to do that is the scientific method. Religion is for a different purpose, and the two are not in conflict. Those who believe that science and religion are in conflict undersand little or nothing about science, and even less about theology.

Remember what a famous 19th Century theologist had to say: "There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Rich

1. Great to hear that you've read lots. Though keep in mind having read info on this topic for half a century doesn't automatically grant authority on such things.

2. Actually that isn't a strength at all since it demonstrates that scientists "jumped the gun" and made mistakes. Is't it said that a good scientist is quick to doubt and slow to accept?

Would you put your faith in someone who has to keep changing their story?

Additionally since you have realised that it can indeed be wrong... By what reason do you believe that they have evolution correct? (I'll be debunking the so-called "evidence" so that cannot be a response here).

3. History is an external source of evidence for the Bible. I am sure others here can fill you in if you wish, since I am not that well versed, (I am studying Biology not Theology)

4. You do realise that evolution makes "no testable predictions of the universe"..... If you had read such books on Creation then you would have been told this at least a hundred times....

I challenge you to show ONE prediction that can be made by evolutionists. Predictions MUST be about the future and not made ad hoc, since an ad hoc "prediction" is not a prediction at all. (Pro Tip: Consider the nature of RANDOM mutation.... Randomness cannot be predicted, hence......)

5. If you are calling evolution a fact, ("facts of evolution") then YOU are making an absolute claim.... Thus contradicting your point 2.....

6. Really? Perhaps consider that the fossil "evidence" is claimed ad hoc. Further consider that there is no empirical test, (the scientific method literally demands empirical testing of the hypothesis), that can be done to similar fossils to determine the cause of their similarity... Surely you realise that the "evidence" for evolution here is merely based on the assumption that "evolution did it", since there is no actual test to determine if it did or not.

The DNA "evidence" is exactly the same. We can see similarites yet there is no empirical test to determine HOW the similarities came to be.

Yes we can see a pattern however that still says nothing. Perhaps the pattern is arbitrary... I can roll a dice a few times and get 2, 4, 6, 2, 4, 6 does this pattern mean anything? No its entirely arbitrary. Unless you know of an actual empirical experiment then these "evidences" are merely opinions and thus are not evidence at all, well not in a scientific sense, (perhaps in a philosophical sense they can be, but that would relegate evolution to the realm of philosophy; where it rightly belongs).

7. Creation as I understand it means just that... That the universe was created. You can quibble about the different versions however in my mind talking about Creation, is a unified force of all these versions. Much like how there are different versions of Christianity- Presbyterians / Baptists etc, they all mean the same thing, they just have different details.

Hence as I said you can quibble over the details of this, however I won't be.

8. Considering that I am studying Biology, (Biotechnology) and have had to endure evolution thrust down my throat at many an interval, (indoctrination much?....), then I am sure I understand much about it. In fact many of the guys on here know more about evolution than me, and yes they read countless articles, of which they see the inconsistencies and how evolution doesn't fit with the actual evidence. Feel free to browse the site I am sure you will find many instances of this.

9. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, though please don't think that it is a point to argue on.

10. Evolution fits right in here as well. I am glad you have mentioned the scientific method since I have already shown how evolution is not compatible with it, therefore by your logic here, evolution is also not science.... Unless you can devise an empirical test for the hypothesis of evolution.